Why should we all pay for those who’ve been scammed?

I think it's possible to feel sorry for the victims of scammers whilst still thinking that it is not the bank's duty to reimburse them. Provided that the banks have taken steps to warn the victim (and NatWest have in my experience been really hot on doing this) I don't see what else they can do (aside from putting a block on an account which I assume none of us want?).

To me it’d depend on the scam.
There was one on TV, a woman, not frail or doddery elderly, or noticeably thick, who sent all her spare cash, some £30k, to a bloke she’d met online, and then took out a bank loan - £10k IIRC, to send him even more, and completely ignored the bank staff who warned her quite forcibly that it was a scam.
I couldn’t summon up much sympathy for her.
If people have been specifically warned by banks and still go ahead, IMO that’s their lookout.

Not long ago we lent a substantial amount (our money, not borrowed) to very old friends who needed a bridging loan when in between buying and selling their houses.
Our bank made a really big Thing of asking dh what the money was for, and warning strongly that it could easily be a scam.
We knew it wasn’t, and the money was soon repaid in full, but we did appreciate the bank’s vigilance.

it really couldn't.

The banks make it so hard to get your own money out. At the beginning of the year my DH went to an auction. He wanted to take cash with him for the top amount he was willing to pay for the item so he could hand the cash over and bring the item back rather than having to go back to collect it when the money was transferred.

Talk about the third degree. He was in there for an hour trying to get his own money out (£5,000 if it makes any difference).

When I set up a new payee on my bank account they ask all sorts of questions and give you reminders about making sure the person you are paying is ligit.

I don't see what else they can do.

Only small romance fraud cases where people don’t have interaction with bank staff are refunded - the regulator is doing this to force banks to come in harder from the first transaction. Some banks have even de-banked people who try to send payments after staff has identified a romance fraud concern.

Did anyone watch the sixth commandment on iplayer, terrifying show and shows really well how people can be easily manipulated by romance scams, could really happen to anyone sadly

The idiot is you trying to compare the two.

Thats a massive, and offensive, leap and you should be ashamed of yourself for making the comparison.

@babetyouknow - so the women abused by Andrew Tate are also idiots who deserve it, then? Sounds like men listening to him are not wasting their money after all!

Yes, it is plain idiocy to follow Andrew Tate. And to send money to him.

yes, it is plain idiocy to follow Andrew Tate, and if you do and you lose money because of it, no one here would be arguing for the bank to refund the misogynstic little twats who follow him.

Same for many of these "romance scams". You threw your money at some apparently hot young man, that you'd never met, for his medical bills or whatever so he could fly over and marry you, a perfect stranger twice his age... despite all the warning, despite everyone telling you not to. You're an idiot. You willingly gave your money to the most obvious scam possible.

Women who don’t listen to their friends warning them they are being manipulated and isolated by their boyfriend - idiots?

@Flickersy - just like it is plain idiocy to follow Andrew Tate? He has argued that victims of sexual assault need to take their share of the blame. Maybe women who dress in short skirts are idiots, too. Women who let themselves be manipulated into sexual acts on the internet - idiots.

The thing is with a lot of romance scams it's not "a moment" of carelessness.

Falling for a phishing scam in an email is a moment of carelessness.

Persistently sending money to someone you've never met who you believe is in love with you when all your friends and family are begging you not to is plain idiocy.

@Raisinganiguana people are asking you questions because we are curious just which victims you are comfortable blaming. I don’t see much consistency in your answers, just a particularly hard heart towards a particularly pathetic set of victims.

The savviest of folk? Of course not. But exactly where to draw the line in law would be a terrible question. Insurance is intriguing but not a viable option - people will not insure, and then all hell will break loose. (Think of American health care). Compassion and common sense coincide.

They may or may not be sophisticated but clearly enough people are taken in by them to make them worth doing.

A colleague in our business just ‘fell for’ what we all assumed was a very obvious scam. He received an email from our boss via his ‘personal’ email address telling him that he didn’t have his card but he needed something like Apple vouchers asap. We’ve had lots of these and email warnings are sent out each time telling us that our boss would never ask any of us for money.

This colleague still forked our £400 before thinking to check with another colleague if it was legit. He really isn’t an idiot, he’s actually very bright and switched on, but he has just lost his dad after a short illness which in my opinion makes him vulnerable. Under normal circumstances he would never have fallen for this but when he’s been upset and his mind is elsewhere he was an easy target.

I feel really sorry for him and don’t blame him at all. He’s already kicking himself, it would be twattish of us to be lining up to kick him again.

There is absolutely no insurance for this kind of stuff for banks ! And even if there were ... then the insurance premiums would go up and that would increase bank costs which would then be passed along to consumers in higher charges, interest rates etc.
We all pay in the end ! I'm not saying the banks shouldn't refund in certain cases but don't be under any illusion ... the customers of the banks will be ultimately footing the bill.

Drug addicts generally get the drugs they pay for and gamblers spend their money on gambling, as intended. With a scam, you do not get what you paid for.

Gamblers and drug addicts get lured in and made to think "they can handle it".

If the love scams are paid back because the emotional manipulation took months, what about the "phone calls from the police or hospital scams"? There is no long term manipulation. They are lured into thinking something, same as gamblers and addicts. Or the cryptocurrency scams? The men who stop at your door to ?"fix" your roof or drive?

You only need to look to people like Andrew Tate to see that he has a similar attitude towards the easily manipulated. It’s the “they deserve what they get” school of thought. It’s just so much easier to be sympathetic towards a moment’s carelessness than towards someone you consider vain, stupid and pathetic, isn’t it, @Raisinganiguana?

Someone I know gave someone 5k and it was so obvious it was a scam. Bank repaid her and said she had been victim of a ‘romantic scam’. I couldn’t believe anyone would fall for this particular scam. I’ve told her to let me know next time she wants to give money away and I’ll talk some sense into her

@Raisinganiguana - quoting you again. Do you see the bit where you say you would “rather refund the nicked mobile”? I then pointed out how inane your comparison was between romance fraud, which is a grooming crime, and opportunistic theft of a mobile. I then referenced other crimes that involve grooming (or do you not understand that grooming can lead to all sorts of abuse, not just financial fraud?) to make the point you were being attributing more moral blame to the painstakingly, deliberately groomed person than the careless person. Now do you see the connection?

If anything people in general would probably have more difficulty in opening bank accounts and get credit as a result of this? I supposed that we all eventually face consequences for the number of people getting scammed this way.

Yes, we all fell for the biggest scam in history, bailing out the banks again and again when their reckless behaviour results in them being bankrupt. And for some weird reason we believe they won't do it again and they do. So falling for a romance scam is nothing compared to what we have all fallen for and continue to fall for.